Defendant was convicted of forgery and given an indeterminate sentence of from two to ten years in tbe penitentiary, and from tbis sentence be prosecutes this writ of error, alleging: (1) that tbe verdict was contrary to tbe law and evidence; and (2) that be was prejudiced by tbe introduction of improper testimony.
Defendant purchased from tbe Smith Motor Sales Company an automobile tire, an inner-tube and some gas, to pay for which be delivered to it a cheek for $32.00 signed by J. B. Webb and made payable to tbe order of defendant, Clinton Webb, on tbe Elkins National Bank, dated July 31, 1924. Tbe check was presented to tbe bank and payment denied because of insufficient funds to tbe credit of J. B. Webb, and on tbe ground that tbe signature of tbe drawer was not genuine. Smith, tbe manager of tbe Sales Company, took tbe check, a day or so afterwards, to tbe purported drawer, J. B. Webb, tbe father of defendant, for the purpose of having tbe check paid. Webb, according to bis testimony, denied that tbe signature was bis, and also denied that be bad given authority to defendant to sign bis name to tbe check. He refused to pay it. Defendant was then arrested, and within a short time thereafter, J. B. Webb, tbe father of defendant, paid tbe check. Defendant swore that be bad authority from bis father to sign bis father's name to checks for small amounts; and tbe father testified that be bad given such authority to tbe boy and that be bad paid several checks theretofore issued by tbe boy to which bis name was signed as drawer. He denied that be told Smith that he bad not given authority to tbe boy to sign bis name *227 to checks for small amounts which the boy might need. He said that he did tell Smith that he did not give authority to sign that particular check. His explanation of his refusal to pay the check when demand was made upon him for payment was that Smith had threatened to arrest the boy, and he, thinking that he had twenty days in which to pay the check before arrest could be made, concluded that he would let Mr. Smith wait, and for the further reason that Smith had owed him for work done and was not prompt in payment. The State introduced a letter written by defendant to his father while in jail, asking his father to bail him out, and which letter made no indication that the check had been signed by the boy under authority given by his father. Whether the boy had authority from his father as testified to by both, or whether it was a subterfuge to obtain acquittal after arrest, was a question of fact which was within the province of the jury to determine; and we cannot say that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The weight to be given to the evidence of the witnesses and their credibility for the establishment of any fact, is peculiarly within the province of the jury.
The second assignment of error is based upon the fact that while defendant was being examined as a witness on his own behalf the prosecuting attorney asked him if he had not just been released from the penitentiary a short time before he negotiated the check, and defendant’s answer was that he “had been released from the pen over a year before he came home,” which question and answer were objected to, but the court refused to strike them out, on the ground that it was competent evidence as affecting the credibility of the witness. Upon redirect examination defendant’s counsel questioned him as to the cause of his confinement in the penitentiary and he replied that it was for breaking jail while he was being confined on a charge of complicity in breaking into a drug store, of which latter offense he was acquitted; but that he was sent to the penitentiary, for breaking jail. The prosecuting attorney then asked him, in effect, if at the time he broke jail the jailer had been assaulted, *228 and defendant stated that the jailer was not assaulted but that they had locked him up' in a cell when they left. The prosecuting attorney asked him how long he had been confined in the penitentiary, and his reply was, sis years, six months and ten days. It will be observed that the offense for which he was convicted and for which he was sentenced to the penitentiary, is not clear.
Whether the accused on trial in a criminal case can be required on cross-examination by the State to answer whether he has been formerly convicted of a crime is a question on which the decisions of the various States are by no means uniform and many are in direct conflict. The weight of authority seems to be that such questions may be propounded and answer required as affecting the credibility of the accused as a witness. The theory upon which the majority ruling is based is that when the accused offers himself as a witness he stands in no better position than any other witness and is subject to the same kind of examination as any other witness. Some of the States have by statutory enactment said that evidence of former convictions may be introduced against the accused. When he takes the stand as a witness he subjects himself to the same rules of cross-examination applicable to all witnesses. In an extended note to
Morrison
v.
State of Texas,
6 A. L. R. 1607, will be found a collation of the various decisions in the States on the point under discussion. It will be observed that many of the decisions are under statutes which allow the introduction of previous convictions of crime to be shown on the cross-examination of a witness for the purpose of testing his credibility, and even when such statutes are not in terms made applicable to the accused, they are interpreted to be applicable to him when he offers himself as a witness. And even in the absence of such a statute the majority rule, as before stated, is that the prosecution may show on cross-examination of the accused that he has been previously convicted of crime, for the purpose of lessening his credibility. The States which have adopted the minority rule, namely, that it is error , to ask the accused and require answer on cross-examination as to
*229
previous convictions of crime as affecting his credibility, are listed in the note referred to above. West Virginia is included in the States adopting the minority rule. In
State
v.
White,
Judgment reversed; verdict set aside; new trial awarded.